On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Chia-I Wu wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 4:01 AM, Ian Romanick wrote:
>> On 09/06/2013 05:05 AM, Chia-I Wu wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Chia-I Wu wrote:
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Chris Forbes wrote:
> A possible explanation for the
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Chia-I Wu wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 4:05 AM, Ian Romanick wrote:
>> On 09/05/2013 03:35 AM, Chia-I Wu wrote:
>>> sample_d is slower than the lowered version on gen7. For gen7, this
>>> improves
>>> Xonotic benchmark with Ultimate effects by as much as 25%
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 4:05 AM, Ian Romanick wrote:
> On 09/05/2013 03:35 AM, Chia-I Wu wrote:
>> sample_d is slower than the lowered version on gen7. For gen7, this improves
>> Xonotic benchmark with Ultimate effects by as much as 25%:
>>
>> before the change: 40.06 fps
>>
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 4:01 AM, Ian Romanick wrote:
> On 09/06/2013 05:05 AM, Chia-I Wu wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Chia-I Wu wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Chris Forbes wrote:
A possible explanation for the perf change is that Xonotic uses
anisotropic filter
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 3:48 AM, Ian Romanick wrote:
> On 09/05/2013 08:57 AM, Chia-I Wu wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Chris Forbes wrote:
>>> A possible explanation for the perf change is that Xonotic uses
>>> anisotropic filtering at this quality level. Lowering to txl defeats
>>> i
On 09/05/2013 03:35 AM, Chia-I Wu wrote:
> sample_d is slower than the lowered version on gen7. For gen7, this improves
> Xonotic benchmark with Ultimate effects by as much as 25%:
>
> before the change: 40.06 fps
> after the change: 51.10 fps
> after
On 09/06/2013 05:05 AM, Chia-I Wu wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Chia-I Wu wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Chris Forbes wrote:
>>> A possible explanation for the perf change is that Xonotic uses
>>> anisotropic filtering at this quality level. Lowering to txl defeats
>>> it.
>
On 09/05/2013 08:57 AM, Chia-I Wu wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Chris Forbes wrote:
>> A possible explanation for the perf change is that Xonotic uses
>> anisotropic filtering at this quality level. Lowering to txl defeats
>> it.
> I had a look at that. gl_sampler->MaxAnisotropy is nev
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Chia-I Wu wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Chris Forbes wrote:
>> A possible explanation for the perf change is that Xonotic uses
>> anisotropic filtering at this quality level. Lowering to txl defeats
>> it.
> I had a look at that. gl_sampler->MaxAnisotro
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Roland Scheidegger wrote:
> Hmm I don't think the math works out here actually, which may explain
> why it's faster.
> I believe the derivatives need to be transformed to cube coord system
> and I don't see that being done here (this is actually something I
> haven
Hmm I don't think the math works out here actually, which may explain
why it's faster.
I believe the derivatives need to be transformed to cube coord system
and I don't see that being done here (this is actually something I
haven't figured out the math yet how to do with reasonable effort for
llvmp
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Chris Forbes wrote:
> A possible explanation for the perf change is that Xonotic uses
> anisotropic filtering at this quality level. Lowering to txl defeats
> it.
I had a look at that. gl_sampler->MaxAnisotropy is never greater than
1.0 in gen7_update_sampler_state
A possible explanation for the perf change is that Xonotic uses
anisotropic filtering at this quality level. Lowering to txl defeats
it.
It would be worth doing an image quality comparison before and after the change.
-- Chris
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 8:35 PM, Chia-I Wu wrote:
> sample_d is slowe
sample_d is slower than the lowered version on gen7. For gen7, this improves
Xonotic benchmark with Ultimate effects by as much as 25%:
before the change: 40.06 fps
after the change: 51.10 fps
after the change with INTEL_DEBUG=no16: 44.46 fps
As samp
14 matches
Mail list logo
